So I've been looking through the 2000 primary details

[njandrewg]

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/conventions/republican/features/turning.points/

Few things I noticed, consider them cliff notes.

1) Religious right supported Bush only because there was no religious right canddiate
2) Bush announced in March, McCain announced end of September
3) Bush had major fundraising outpacing everyone else
4) Because fundraising sucked up all potential money, other candidates started to drop out
5) Apparently Bush declining matching funds was unprecedented...but it allowed him to do much better in key states
6) Bush won Ames straw poll after competing there for only 2 months
7) Bush stumbled when he was asked to name world leaders, which showed his inexperience
8) Bush collected all of the key endorsements
9) Once again McCain only focused on NH
10) Bush won Iowa with 41% because McCain didn't compete
11) McCain beats Bush in NH primary because he skipped NH Debates and was seen as Mr. Moneybags who was buying the election(why is Romney leading in NH?)
12) Bush's lead in South Carolina evaporated immediatly after NH primary
13) People expected McCain to take off if he won both NH and SC
14) Bush moved more right to try to beat McCain in SC and attacked McCain by labeling him a liberal .
15) McCain blew his reputation as a clean politician after he ran response attack ads on Bush
16) Bush got more christian right vote by visiting a racist university
17) McCain wins Michigan
18) Battle between McCain going after Catholic votes(showing Bush visited that Christian Right University) and Bush getting support from Christian right blowback
19) TREND: McCain was able to compete with Bush in states with open primaries. Bush won every state with closed primary except for CT and Mccain's home state
20) Primaries...and McCain losing 1 primary overwhelmingly killed him before the day with the 11 primaries
21) NEW YORK PRIMARY: McCain had trouble getting on the ballot...because New York made rules insanely hard except for party favourite. But McCain was able to get on the ballot after a judge ordered all republicans to be listed
22) Attack ads on McCain by Bush backers...Bush denies involvement
23) McCain drops out...his victories essentially were in NE(1 region of the country)
24) Bush spent all of his $70 million raised on the campaign.

[MozoVote]

It was obvious in 1999, long before Bush announced, that the party establishment was lining up behind him. He was the consensus candiidate, kind of like Fred Thompson is now.

That in itself is a big reason why I cannot get on the Fred train. No more "consensus" candidiates that get talked into running! UGH! Don't we ever learn? :( Candidiates need to have that zest for winning. They need vision, and a strategy.

[Scribbler de Stebbing]

It was obvious in 1999, long before Bush announced, that the party establishment was lining up behind him. He was the consensus candiidate, kind of like Fred Thompson is now.

Big difference this year is that enough other media-approved candidates have traction to split off the consensus vote. In my state, I'm counting on Romney and Thompson to fight over the conservatives, Giuliani and McCain to fight over the RINOs, so Ron Paul can come up in between.

[Matt Collins]

Fascinating - this should be discussed more!

[JosephTheLibertarian]

if we had free market media, this wouldn't happen. MSM is currently owned by a handful of elitists, and they call this a free market? LOL It's looking a lot like fascism.

[slantedview]

It was obvious in 1999, long before Bush announced, that the party establishment was lining up behind him. He was the consensus candiidate, kind of like Fred Thompson is now.

That in itself is a big reason why I cannot get on the Fred train. No more "consensus" candidiates that get talked into running! UGH! Don't we ever learn? :( Candidiates need to have that zest for winning. They need vision, and a strategy.

This is why things are different now. Needless to say, a log of people have become bitter on Bush. Hopefully they'll think twice before just automatically supporting the concensus candidate.

[foofighter20x]

On #11... McCain didn't even announce until after Ames in 1999. Just thought it'd be useful to point that out. :)

[Corydoras]

11) McCain beats Bush in NH primary because he skipped NH Debates and was seen as Mr. Moneybags who was buying the election(why is Romney leading in NH?)

Romney is leading in NH because the state's biggest city, Manchester, is within the Boston, MA television market. A fair number of people from MA have moved over the border to NH for the lower taxes but work in MA and have friends and family in MA. Name recognition counts.

[Michael Ingram]

This is why things are different now. Needless to say, a log of people have become bitter on Bush. Hopefully they'll think twice before just automatically supporting the concensus candidate.

Thinking that hopefully the MSM is smart enough not to have a consensus candidate is giving them too much credit. :(

[cac1963]

This is why things are different now. Needless to say, a log of people have become bitter on Bush. Hopefully they'll think twice before just automatically supporting the concensus candidate.

One guy told me last night that he no longer votes because every time he does he screws it up, saying he voted for Bush. He said he'll never vote again because of that. I tried to tell him this is his opportunity to fix it, but he was really disgusted with himself for helping Bush get into office and wouldn't even consider hearing about Paul.

[cac1963]

I was looking into the primary stats for our state and see that every city with about a 70,000 population will need to muster about 5,000 votes each for Paul to secure a win in the primary. Smaller towns need the same proportion to push it over the top.

I can confidently say we've got about 300 people in Paul's camp so far, leaving ALOT of work to be done locally. Has anybody else analyzed their state's situation to set some realistic targets for a Paul GOTV effort?

We need to obtain some carefully parsed GOP voter lists and burn some massive shoeleather to reach as many potential primary voters as possible in a very short 3-month time span. While the street corner visibility is fun for most, its shotgun approach is not going to bring in the numbers we need to overcome the votes coming in for the media-crowned frontrunners.

[inibo]

I was looking into the primary stats for our state and see that every city with about a 70,000 population will need to muster about 5,000 votes each for Paul to secure a win in the primary. Smaller towns need the same proportion to push it over the top.

I can confidently say we've got about 300 people in Paul's camp so far, leaving ALOT of work to be done locally. Has anybody else analyzed their state's situation to set some realistic targets for a Paul GOTV effort?

We need to obtain some carefully parsed GOP voter lists and burn some massive shoeleather to reach as many potential primary voters as possible in a very short 3-month time span. While the street corner visibility is fun for most, its shotgun approach is not going to bring in the numbers we need to overcome the votes coming in for the media-crowned frontrunners.

I've looked at Maryland, a relatively small state. It makes my stomach hurt.
http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/fe2000/2000presprim.htm#MD

376,034 people voted in the Republican primaries in 2000. Even with the pro-war vote split evenly between say three candidates it would take over 100,000 votes for for Ron Paul to win on a plurality. I suspect the neocons will not be split evenly so it would take even more to put Ron Paul over the top. We have maybe 300 really active MeetUp folks. We would each have to generate almost 500 voters--in a closed primary state where the former republican governor is working for Rudy and the former republican lt. governor is rumored to be in the running for Fred's VP. It looks daunting to say the least.

Someone please spin me a bright side out of this.

[njandrewg]

I've looked at Maryland, a relatively small state. It makes my stomach hurt.
http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/fe2000/2000presprim.htm#MD

Someone please spin me a bright side out of this.
we don't need to win every state.

We do need to win one of the earlier states(NH, Iowa, SC), so that the people will take notice and actually look into Ron Paul. Thanks to the media the people tend to look throguh the front runners when deciding: Rudy, Romney, Thompson

+ Primaries are 4 months away, and some states 8 months away...the Iraq war is going t be a clusterfuck by then and more people w/ill want out

[Mesogen]

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/conventions/republican/features/turning.points/

Few things I noticed, consider them cliff notes.

1) Religious right supported Bush only because there was no religious right canddiate
You forget about Alan Keyes.



14) Bush moved more right to try to beat McCain in SC and attacked McCain by labeling him a liberal .
And by saying he had an illegitimate black baby.


15) McCain blew his reputation as a clean politician after he ran response attack ads on Bush
Oh, I've gotta know what these were like.


16) Bush got more christian right vote by visiting a racist university
Bob Jones?


22) Attack ads on McCain by Bush backers...Bush denies involvement
Don't they always?

[katao]

we don't need to win every state.

We do need to win one of the earlier states(NH, Iowa, SC), so that the people will take notice and actually look into Ron Paul. Thanks to the media the people tend to look throguh the front runners when deciding: Rudy, Romney, Thompson

Agreed, and don't forget Wyoming now that it moved up to 1st. I personally think that it is the only way to win - to win/be close in those first states. It is a sad fact, but true nonetheless, that people won't vote for someone they don't think can win. So we have to prove that he can win! I personally believe a huge percentage of our efforts should be focused on those states.

[Jared Callanan]

Good post. A couple things;

A. Mitt Romney is doing well in New Hampshire for two reasons: A. He has campaigned there more than any other candidate the last I checked. I also think he has been an announced candidate longer than most of the field. B. He is a former Governor of Mass (a boarder state) and it benefits him greatly in the same way it helped Tsongas in '92 and Kerry in '04. People forget that there are a lot of former Mass residents living in New Hampshire now. It's safe to say there is a large chunk of New Hampshire residents who voted for Mitt when he ran for Senate in '94 and Governor.

If you take a look at McCain's success in New Hampshire it was because he essentially dropped everything else and said my campaign starts or ends in New Hampshire. He was here all the time doing town hall meetings and meeting the voters and it paid off. The same goes for Howard Dean, he may not have won New Hampshire but if you consider that he was an absolute no one prior to 2004 he did pretty good especially when considering he was facing a current sitting senator from New Hampshire's next door neighbor Massachusetts. Howard Dean in the early going campaigned full time in New Hampshire and Iowa and was able to build huge support in each state.

And this is what has sort of bugged me about the Ron Paul campaign. I understand he wants to build support around the country but if he does bad in Iowa and New Hampshire it is all over for our chances of winning the nomination. To go a step further by visiting states like Florida and Nevada he hurts his chances of winning NH or IA because those are states that threaten their first in the nation caucus and primary, something voters in the state cherish greatly. If he continues to visit the early primary states that threaten NH and IA he is going to alienate those voters and essentially ending our chances of winning the nomination.


In my opinion he could skip NH and Iowa and still put up one hell of a fight. If I was campaign manager I would start going full force in a couple of states of his choosing. Even as a New Hampshire voter I wouldn't be mad if he decided to go full bore in Nevada, in fact I think New Hampshire is so competitive right now with 8 candidates that it might be best for the campaign that Paul to go after a state like Nevada where he isn't going to have other candidates campaigning against him. To go a step further, Nevada is a caucus state, one would think with our grassroots movement that it would be easier for us to win a caucus than a primary and my guess would be that Nevada would be much more receptive to Ron's anti-war policy than Iowa. Think about it, if Ron Paul won the Nevada Caucus the MSM couldn't hide such a feat and he would get huge coverage in doing so. It would be much much easier to win the Nevada Caucus than the Iowa or New Hampshire primary. A win in Nevada or any other early state would carry us into the later stages of the primary season, and would allow us to stay in the race while the others drop out. Getting into the later stages of the primary season would allow us to become a Jerry Brown (1992) type candidate, where we can be on stage debating the one or two other serious candidates, tally good percentages and thus collecting delegates to the convention.

B. I am not so sure that Fred Thompson is the consensus candidate. I think there are so many high level Republicans running that there isn't a consensus candidate. George Bush and Bob Dole didn't crumble because they were THE consensus candidates, Fred Thompson will crumble not because he is any worse of a campaigner or debator than the other two but because there really isn't a spot for him in this primary as we will shortly find out.

[AgentPaul001]

Well I think Guliani, Romney, Thompson, and McCain will split much of the prowar vote and create a nice little niche for Ron Paul and the MAJORITY to make a statement.

[Elwar]

Big difference this year is that enough other media-approved candidates have traction to split off the consensus vote. In my state, I'm counting on Romney and Thompson to fight over the conservatives, Giuliani and McCain to fight over the RINOs, so Ron Paul can come up in between.

With the amount of equal air time they give to all of the neo-cons, splitting the vote, it's almost as though they want Ron Paul to win.

[inibo]

Well I think Guliani, Romney, Thompson, and McCain will split much of the prowar vote and create a nice little niche for Ron Paul and the MAJORITY to make a statement.

I agree with you and I'm hoping for something like this:



Crabs in a Basket (http://www.managementblog.org/archives/2005/06/28/crabs-in-a-basket/)
If you only have one crab in the basket, you have to really watch him, because he will crawl out of that basket lickety split. With a bunch of crabs, when one starts to crawl out, all the other crabs attach to his legs and pull him back into the basket. You would think they would all try to crawl out, but that’s not what happens.

[kenc9]

In reading these posts and with FT entering the race I think RP has it right about it helping him win.

The national polls have it right now like this,
Rudy Giuliani 32%
Fred Thompson 19%
Mitt Romney 14%
John McCain 11%

All the Pro war Republicans will have to vote for these guys and 25% of Republicans are against the war so that leaves RP with most of those votes.

Besides that RP gets the Independent votes (Libertarians and such) Dems swing votes and all the first time voters and those that quit voting.

All that has to happen are no big blunders from RP and to keep going along the way he is going.

-ken

[jacmicwag]

I agree we have to do well early to make a statement. My guess is these trips out West are big money hops for Ron as well as good publicity. Let's face it, wherever he goes, the house is full and the check books are open. Good thing - we'll need it soon.

With 5 strong candidates (other than RP) running in Iowa, Ron could win with as few as 20,000 votes. He got 1301 in the Straw Poll and on average most candidates go up by a multiple of 10 for the Caucus (but not always). That puts us at 13,000. There are over 200,000 college students in Iowa this semester. Mitt is hanging out at the JCs trying to wench up votes but these folks are clearly in our corner. We just need to get 7,000 new students/young people registered to vote in the Republican Caucus. A few of us have started working this angle but we may need help contacting tens of thousands via facebook networks. Let me know if any of you are interested.

Jack